David Halberstam, the author who died in a Menlo Park traffic accident in 2007, was a man of many words, never content to explain something in 400 pages when 900 would do.

He was a journalistic god of my youth. In his 1972 book, “The Best and the Brightest,’’ he said this about what he called “the centralized state” revealed in the Pentagon Papers:

“Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not so much from threats from foreign governments but from detection from its own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.”

Four decades later, you can apply Halberstam’s words to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which is facing a modest challenge from Yahoo.

Advertisement

In 2008, Yahoo argued to the secret court that the government’s request for spying on certain foreign users was unconstitutional without a warrant.

Last week, the company revealed that it was asking the court to release certain files on that case, including the court’s ruling and Yahoo’s arguments.

You can read this as good public relations for Yahoo. Certainly Marissa Mayer’s company needs it. After the revelations of NSA spying released by Edward Snowden, the company could see an opportunity to improve its image.

Public benefit

But there is something here that matters to all of us. Yahoo took the lead five years ago in questioning the government. Once it lost, its competitors fell in line with authorities.

A federal judge dismissed Yahoo’s argument as a “parade of horribles.” But with a secret court, we have no idea what the horribles were.

Since the Snowden revelations, the Obama administration has issued all sorts of soothing words. We have it under control. We’re dealing with “metadata.” We’re concerned with foreigners.

Let’s put it politely: This is so much manure. Without the chance to question publicly the government’s assertions -- without even knowing them -- we have little way to check its intrusions.

While the federal judges who are appointed to the FISA court are a conscientious bunch, they are essentially hearing only one side.

We already know the government can lie brazenly. Back in March, when he was questioned by Sens. Mark Udall and Ron Wyden, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper denied the government collected massive data on Americans. “Not wittingly,” he said as his nose grew.

Sweeping judgment

Last weekend, the New York Times reported that the FISA court had adopted a new and sweeping interpretation of the word “relevant” to justify broad powers of spying. Essentially, “relevant” suddenly meant “everything.”

The Yahoo request will not tell us all about this. But it will give us insight into how the secret court operates -- and why one company objected. It will offer more than the meager broth of total numbers of surveillance requests.

“If Yahoo is successful in revealing what the court did and why, then we will know more about the laws our government is purportedly operating under, which sadly we don’t currently know,” Jennifer Stisa Granick, a civil liberties expert at Stanford Law School told reporter Brandon Bailey.

The parade of horribles is already marching down the street. The Yahoo request will help us measure its extent.